The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
| Title |
An update on antibody-based immunotherapies for Clostridium difficile infection
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ceg.s84017 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Greg Hussack, Jamshid Tanha |
| Abstract |
Clostridium difficile continues to be one of the most prevalent hospital-acquired bacterial infections in the developed world, despite the recent introduction of a novel and effective antibiotic agent (fidaxomicin). Alternative approaches under investigation to combat the anaerobic Gram-positive bacteria include fecal transplantation therapy, vaccines, and antibody-based immunotherapies. In this review, we catalog the recent advances in antibody-based approaches under development and in the clinic for the treatment of C. difficile infection. By and large, inhibitory antibodies that recognize the primary C. difficile virulence factors, toxin A and toxin B, are the most popular passive immunotherapies under investigation. We provide a detailed summary of the toxin epitopes recognized by various antitoxin antibodies and discuss general trends on toxin inhibition efficacy. In addition, antibodies to other C. difficile targets, such as surface-layer proteins, binary toxin, motility factors, and adherence and colonization factors, are introduced in this review. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 54 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 13% |
| Researcher | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 9 | 17% |
| Unknown | 18 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 12 | 22% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 11% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 5 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 9% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Unknown | 19 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 July 2023.
All research outputs
#7,853,067
of 25,576,275 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology
#116
of 330 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,305
of 381,680 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology
#4
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,576,275 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 330 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 381,680 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.